Home | About | Donate

'Not a Popular Position,' But a Consistent One: To Fight Corruption on Capitol Hill, Ocasio-Cortez Backs Pay Raise for Congress

No. She’s arguing not for herself but for her staff.

1 Like

Not just “NO!” but “HELL NO!” for Congressional raises. When EVERYBODY has a LIVING WAGE, then we can talk about what the liars and thieves in Congress gets

3 Likes

Well there are – maybe – two or three who shouldn’t be fired and ten or twelve who shouldn’t be impris­oned, so I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  I just hope that when Kim Jong Un carries out his threat to Nuke the U.S. that his target is Washington, D.C., and not a part of the country with a much lower per capita number of criminals.

1 Like

But you’re not making the argument that AOC is making. She should be arguing that staffers are eligible, or any Representative that can show they are in need of income assistance, like welfare recipients have to go through.

I find it absurd that a family can’t live in DC on 175,000 per year. Damn, can you imagine how families are doing it working for less than 15 bucks an hour?

The point of her argument was that her position was consistent in getting big money/dark money out of politics, that $4500 dollar raise would offer some degree of incentive to turn away such cash.

THAT argument is absolutely idiotic.

She should be attacking the problem of this corruption more directly. I get it, I do. She IS NOT a millionaire like most Representatives so she could probably use the money herself.

That is not a swipe at AOC because I’ve been impressed with her. Just seeking her motivation to make such a stupid political argument. She is certainly smarter than that.

I do not think AOC’s critics here are thinking all that clearly.

Number one: of course, if you are already a corrupt millionaire, getting $4500 more per year from your legitimate job won’t turn you into an angel of light. You are all to be applauded for that brilliant insight, yes, but I do not think AOC would dispute that either, and it’s completely irrelevant to her point.

Number two: of course, it would be better to reformulate her proposal as “only honest legislators get to receive a pay raise”. The trouble with that is, by what metric are you going to quantify that? Sure, maybe there’s a way, but it adds a lot of complexity, and if you are familiar at all with the legislative process, you know that adding complexity to already controversial proposals is not a super practical approach. And, if someone is provably corrupt, the solution is to fire them (and, ideally, prosecute them), not merely to deny them a modest COLA.

Number three: if $4500/yr won’t turn corrupt millionaires into angels of light, it’s also not likely to exacerbate any of the problems we are talking about either. In the greater scheme of things, to begrudge the corrupt millionaires the relative chump change we are talking about even if it means also forfeiting the chance to make holding office more accessible to honest civil servants who genuinely aspire to serve the people is only cutting off our noses to spite our faces. It amounts to exactly the same kind of demagogic pseudopopulist (il)logic that denounces public campaign financing via small donor matching funds, on the grounds that “I don’t want those crooks getting any more of my hard-earned money!”

1 Like

“…treat it like a real job”…LOL! $15 hour!! Yeah!!

They can get free tents and live with the homeless…

P-chicken: Wrong

Welcome John D–too bad your wrong too. We need legislation to claw back the pay from congress people who don’t do their jobs, not a punishment for those who do.

L 7-- wrong

I am glad you have faith in our government and elected representatives and believe $4000 will prevent them from declining a Caribbean vacation from the (insert name here) lobby to vote in their favor.

Me too.

Care to explain what is wrong with my argument Jessejean? Give it a try!

You are right: the root of the problem is capitalism. She should be snapping her fingers and dismantling it, but she is not smart enough to know how to do that. You with your briliant genius should step up to the plate and explain to her how to achieve that feat. In the meantime, mere mortals like me (or Neil Barofsky, much smarter man than myself, and author of the book, “Bailout”) puzzle over how to feed ourselves and our families if we dare do anything that inordinately displeases the corporate police state. Barofsky was the special auditor appointed to monitor the disbursal of money from the infamous bank bailout in 2009, entrusted with the responsibility for making sure that the criminals being bailed out did not commit even more fraud for the sake of increasing their take of the bailout money. Unfortunately for him, though, he was perceived as being too good at his job, and was warned in no uncertain terms by one of Geithner’s henchmen at Treasury that he might just be making himself unemployable once he left his recently appointed position. Likewise, people like AOC have to worry about the same thing, once they have angered a critical mass of billionaire zionists, oil industry apparatchiks, pharma executives, etc etc etc. If $4500 more per year can help them summon an ounce more courage against the probable results of being blacklisted by the corporate state after being drummed out of office by these criminals, it will be a very modest charge that we the taxpayers can probably survive (unlike the price we are now paying in corporate crime by Big Pharma, the oil industry, the military industrial complex, and all the other criminal gangsters who run the USA and the world and are rapidly pushing the whole planet over the precipice of apocalypse).

Who are you?

What the hell kind of question is that Jessejean? What, it’s not clear enough for you? I’m the one and only and quite adorable, witty, and intelligent…Psychedelic Chicken.

So apparently you can’t articulate why my argument was “wrong”.

Have you read Neil Barofsky’s “Bailout” yet? Maybe you can explain to him and us how he could have done a better job, with no job guarantees out of his special auditor position, and threats from Geithner’s henchmen to make him “unemployable” if he kept up his (“too good”) work, and why we consequently have no need to grant COLAs for civil servants to cushion the blow when the knives come out for them.

Perhaps you can explain to me what the hell you are talking to me about, regarding the points I’ve made in this thread.

Thank You for being a part of this community. We do not accept any corporate underwriting, advertising, or government support.

Without Your Support We Simply Don’t Exist. Please consider leaving a tip for Common Dreams

Leave a Tip

What the hell kind of question is that Jessejean? What, it’s not clear enough for you? I’m the one and only and quite adorable, witty, and intelligent…Psychedelic Chicken.

So apparently you can’t articulate why my argument was “wrong”.


Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.

To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.

Choosing not to argue with a psycho chicken is not the same as not being able to.